Imagine a woven wooden basket that’s 120 feet high, broad at the base and curving gently inward as it rises.
Now imagine that basket wrapped in opaque glass. In daylight the glass is a veil, shrouding what’s within; but at night, light seeps out through the basket and the veil, glowing for all to see.
No, no, no I really don’t want to imagine that it might give me nightmares.
That’s the ethereal promise of the design for Oakland’s Christ the Light Cathedral, which marked its ceremonial groundbreaking Saturday. For today’s Bay Area, it’s a uniquely adventurous work of architecture — and the only high-profile one that isn’t by a globe-trotting celebrity architect.
The design for the cathedral and its 2 1/2-acre complex alongside Lake Merritt is by Craig Hartman of the San Francisco office of Skidmore Owings & Merrill. Instead of traditional cathedral architecture, majestic and strong —
evoked so well in the recent Los Angeles cathedral designed by Spanish architect Rafael Moneo — Hartman offers a vision of warm, delicate layers that hint at the mysteries of things unseen. [Source]
So if Oakland and L.A. were having an ugly cathedral contest, who would win?
Based on the aerial view Instead of cruciform we have football form and I have to admit that this design makes me call out Hail Mary!
The sensation will be one of being surrounded by blinds, not a solid wall — each plank set at an angle, with open space between each one. And the planks will serve the same purpose as blinds, letting in sunlight without the glint of direct rays.
Ah that explains it, a case of the blinds leading the blind.
So the outside looks like something from Krypton in the Superman Movie and the inside is strait out of Woody Allen’s Sleeper. It looks like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters exploded inside. Now I am not one to automatically equate modern with ugly and I think modern structures can be built with beauty that point us to God. In my opinion this is not an example of that, though I would defer to Erik Keilholtz on this.
I think my original opinion when the contract was first awarded still applies in that the architect said that architecture is "to inspire and ennoble the human spirit.” Possibly that might be true, but that is not the point of reference in building a church. Having our spirit ennobled sounds to much like the modern version of self-esteem and the point of worship is not to esteem ourselves but God.
Update:
A reader informed me about one of the designs that lost out by Domiane Forte, a graduate student of architecture at Notre Dame
No wonder it didn’t win – it actually looks like a church and we can’t have that you know.
82 comments
What disturbs me the most about this…. this… THING, is that is completely lifeless. Sterile. Empty.
Where are the images of the saints? Why is there no statue of the Holy Virgin Mary? Why is there no crucifix? This thing looks more like a spaceship than anything else! Not to mention the high costs of maintenance… I hope the diocese of Oakland has enough money to pay for the A/C inside this, and I hope the pastor buys enough dark glasses to pass to each member of the congregation, lest they go snow blind.
Veronica,
I don’t like this “church” anymore than anybody else here, but does it actually SNOW in Oakland? If it does, excuse my ignorance of California (southern v. northern etc. etc.) but I thought, though it gets cold up there, that it never snowed in northern Cal. except in the mountains! So when you say “snowblind” are you talking in the same sense someone from, say, the U.P. would or are you just using it with the emphasis on blindess – in which case I would suggest an alternate word: (“snow”)BLIND ?
I think Philip has said it best here. We as a church are being stripped of everthing we hold dear to us. First it was statues out the door, replaced with banners. Prayers at the end of the mass…gone. And now even the buildings we worship in are going to look like “white washed tombs”. P U
ya know, the more I look at the inside photo, I think this will be an ideal place for “ecumenical” gatherings. No one will be offended … there will be no need to hide or cover-up statues or a crucifix …. the building is “fluid, morphing, evolving” friendly, if you know what I mean.
However, the white modern columns remind me of shark teeth … or ribs in the belly of a whale ….
oh, “snow blind” = “sun glare” perhaps.
Dare I? Oh yes…
What is wrong with you people? Are you stuck in the middle ages or what? This is a modern design for a modern church, get over it. You ask,” where are the statues”? Do you need them? I think not. Are you stuck on idols?(Lord helps us)
If Christ is in your heart, what your worship space looks like does not matter. As long as Christ is present at mass, what more do you need.
Yes, I find this wonderful design and wish there was more like it. But then I’m just a modern artist with modern tastes living in the 21st Century.
God Bless…
Ugh this thing looks like the United Federation of Planets council chamebers. You’d think that they could hold off building it at least until we’ve made first contact with the Vulcans.
Does the local Una Voce chapter have anything to say about it? Perhaps we could start a paper/online petition with their help. There must be SOME way to keep this thing from being built. Why couldn’t they look to Sacramento’s Cathedral as a model? Why, why, why?!?
James,
It’s because church archetecture is supposed to ‘lift up our hearts’ to God.
It’s all very well to say that ‘If Christ is in your heart, what your worship space looks like does not matter’, but we are not just spiritual beings, we are physical as well. And, as physical beings, we are affected by our surroundings.
Father Totton:
“So when you say “snowblind” are you talking in the same sense someone from, say, the U.P. would or are you just using it with the emphasis on blindess – in which case I would suggest an alternate word: (“snow”)BLIND ?”
LOL. I meant ‘snowblind’ to describe the sun glare one might experience inside this monstruosity of a church. Similar to people in the Artic, that have to wear goggles to avoid being blinded by the sun reflecting on the snow’s surface. Since this thing is completely white, and surrounded by windows, one can only imagine what it would be like to be there at Mass at midday. You might even have to put on some sunblock before entering…
(Also, I’ll admit that my English is still a bit limited. Lack of practice, I guess…)
“Yep, it�s designed to be the first cathedral with a retractable roof. No kidding.”
http://www.dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=criticism-oakland
Does anyone know if the final design included a retractable roof and, if so, why?
Dear Maria,
I actually have an agreement with James. I do find this architectural design quite stunning and uplifting, especially if the glass is to be colored. Now, if I find it uplifting and you do not, then has the design met the stated goal of “‘lift[ing] up our hearts’ to God”? Thusfar, the majority of complaints I have read about this have been aesthetic. Only a handful have spoken about practicality (e.g., difficulties with preaching, interior temperature).
Interior design of churches has evolved over time. This is tradition, not Tradition, over which we squabble. I have faith that Bishop Vigneron is not leading his flock astray. He has acted within the principles of subsidiarity and of collegiality of bishops.
That’s funny, Andy. As I recall, the Jews kept the basic interior design of the temple the same each and every time a new one was built. As far as evolution is concerned, do you mean to suggest that our Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox brethren have not “evolved” because their temples all have had the same interior design for thousands of years just like our churches did until a few short years ago? Frankly, the West has devolved, if anything. Iconoclasm is suddenly alive and well again in the Roman Church. I agree with the poster who suggested that celebrating the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the West might be beneficial for us.
Dear Gavin,
In the West, though, the architectural style has changed. We have Classical, Gothic, Baroque, Neo-Classical, Romanesque, etc. Pews are an addition. The communion rail that was at one point more like the iconostasis is likewise an evolution (the word “evolution” itself means change).
Iconoclasm on the rise? I can agree with you there, as history since the 1960’s shows. Does iconoclasm truly refer to the interior design and architecture, or the lack of statues, icons, and other images of saints and blesseds? I’m not certain.
I do find this discussion amusing. I hear bad things about the new L.A. cathedral, which at least looks like a basic church design (i.e., it’s rectangular) and not many people making those comments appreciated H.E. Mahony. Those same people thanks H.E. Vigneron for what he has done in Oakland, and now this broughaha comes along. It makes me wonder if the smoke in the sanctuary is on both sides of the aisle. I know I sin, so this is not me trying to pull a speck out of anyone’s eye.
While some aspects of the architecture may have changed, the transition from Romanesque to Gothic, Gothic to Baroque, etc. never stripped the churches of the sense of the sacred. You will find statues honoring the saints in all these design schools. You will find a lot of things of grandeur pointing to heaven. While these “breaks with tradition” changed the style, the substance remained the same.
I cannot say the same for this monstrosity. It evokes nothing sacral. It is a triumph of commercialism and humanist/egoist triumphalism. In short, this cathedral design, more likely the product of an architect “artiste” with an overblown ego, is a disgusting sham. It can be called many things, but it must never be called a house of God.
Heck, it looks like something wherein you play the Imperial March for a processional.
Maybe it’s not too late to look at the architects who designed the new Greek Orthodox cathedral being built there. At least it looks like a church. http://www.ascensioncathedral.org/
Dear Jonathan,
You are giving an aesthetic argument. This type of argument reflects your personal preferences. “It evokes nothing sacral” for you. For those of us which it does evoke something sacral, are we too to be ignored? The Ordinary of Oakland has determined this to be an appropriate design for a cathedral. I trust his judgment in this instance.
Further, people are complaing about the cost. Part of that is to fulfill the codes that require the building be eathquake proof. Another legitimate concern is: with all that glass, is the building truly safe?
I believe in my aesthetical sense that the glass would make the cathedral beautiful if it was colored.
What if I barf on it (involuntarily, of course, but merely as a result of looking at it)? That will give it some color.
wow, that is an ugly building… looks like michael s. rose is going to have to write Ugly As Sin 2. what the heck is going out in California.
Hi. I like the design of that new Cathedral. I don’t know if it should be the design, but I suspect it is no more shocking that the first Romanesque or Gothic Cathedrals might have been.
The Basilica model that more or less set the form for Church architecture in the West began to be adopted after the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century.
There is nothing touching the Creed in Church design as such.
The big problem would be if a design changed the way the Church prays somehow.
Dear Michael,
Many will now try to tell you that this will change the way people pray.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who likes this design.
That is not a good design for a cathedral. First those ikea seats. Where is the kneelers? there’s none in the model, that’s a simple but important detail. Since the design of the seats isn’t straight, when they add kneelers later it will reduce the capacity dramatically. My first impression of the interior is cold. frigid cold. bright but cold. If they say the vertical planks are for shades, it doesn’t show that idea in the model, use sunscreen to go to Mass? ridiculous. I dislike the interior so much I even doubt even faith based community will built this design. It is definitely not an inviting place for people to take refuge in. Seriously, the locals should form a Sash Movement to protest this thing. I would.
Dear Andy,
Thanks for the comment.
I think making final decisions on such things as a design like this would a very involved process. At some point someone who has the competence and the authority to make the decision would have to be trusted to make the right one. Someone mentioned the Bishop above. He would seem to be the right person.
But I do recognize there are many elements involved. I happen to like the way it looks from the outside. There is something stunning and beautiful about it. Like Cathedrals of old, it is meant to be noticed and contemplated for what the architectural statement is saying theologically. I guess it is even meant to be enjoyed just for the way it looks. And it could also be a statement to the culture, as if to say, “Yes, we build beautiful things in this world too, more beautiful than your square office building. We do this because there is something inside that is very important. Yes, it is so important we will even spend lots of money, time, energy, thought, etc. to do it”.
I wasn’t thrilled with the way it looked inside. Someone asked about kneelers. To me the Church praying includes actual people kneeling to pray, and I like that. On my first glance, the inside seemed almost too light. I’d like a bit of darkness, a feeling of solitude. I wish there were stained glass and saints as well. I want the whole history, the teaching, the great saints, letters on walls, etc.
I don’t know how you balance everything. It takes a genius. If there is a modern Michelangelo or Bernini or Medieval Cathedral designer out there, I hope the Bishop would find him/her and hire that person. I don’t mean making a medieval or Rennaissance Church building. I mean that kind of genius in the contemporary Catholic world.
Anyway, there are probably a million things that go into it, and my likes or dislikes would only be mine. If there were lots of other people feeling prayerful in it, praying in it, if liturgies had that – I’d like it even more. I would take that to be a sign of something too.
On the third hand, the place becomes prayerful if there are people praying in it, no matter what it looks like.
The more I think of this, the more mysterious it gets, the more complicated it gets. The outside looks good to me. The “whole” project? That’s why the Bishops get paid the big bucks.
Hi Andy!
I’m glad you somehow find it ‘lifts up your heart’.
Quite frankly, I don’t. Aesthetically speaking, I find the outside ugly and the inside cold and dead. Modern architecture with all glass and metal and plastic somehow tends to have that effect on me.
I find it interesting that Michael said that, ‘Like Cathedrals of old, it is meant to be noticed and contemplated for what the architectural statement is saying theologically’, because I don’t really see what it manages to say, theologically speaking.
It has done away with the symbolism that ecclesiastical architecture has developed over the centuries.
The only plus I can think of it having, theologically speaking, is the idea of the light radiating from the church, but, in practice, that would probably only happen at vigil services, and it does seem to sort of put the light under a bushel basket.
God bless!
“This type of argument reflects your personal preferences. “It evokes nothing sacral” for you. For those of us which it does evoke something sacral, are we too to be ignored?”
Well, while I do not know how this “cage” evokes any subjective sense of the sacred in anybody, I meant my statement to be objective. There is nothing celebrating sacredness and holiness in that place, save for a drab Protestant cross in the center hanging like a puppet. It evokes “conference room” or “convention center”, or “Galactic Senate”, but not “church”. (Which lends to my puzzlement with how any can subjectively find sacredness here…perhaps, people who find convention cneters sacred?) There are no statues or sacramentals, no grandeur of the sacred befitting the God it is supposed to house.
Quite a few people MUST like it I reckon, or wouldn’t there be 500,000 Alamedeans and Contra Costians revolting?
I’ll betcha it’s going to be a you-know-what to clean! Priests with black soled shoes scuffing up the white floor. We won’t be able to find brides or altar servers against all that white, it’ll be just faces and hands like maumenchante (sp??) theatre.
I saw an earlier post regarding kneelers, but how about those bucket seats? I’m trying to see the family of seven with their babies (who tend to fall asleep somewhere in the Mass), they usually spread out in a pew on their blankeys, and little ones usually nestle up against their Daddies and Mommies with their arms around each other… or is that frowned upon now? Maybe this cathedral wasn’t meant for those cozy family types.
Since this is only an architectural model, I don’t think the floor will necessarily be white. That’s the positive side of things. But we have a reasonably small family (four children) and we wouldn’t be able to sit together in the “front” row of this church. Perhaps families with children are not intended to attend such a place?
Even with fins or shades or whatever they have, the sun is likely to be a problem for the people facing the windows where the sun comes in (because it will still be very bright–that’s the point, isn’t it?) and the people with their backs to those windows (because they may get uncomfortably warm).
Leaving aside the question of the building’s architectural significance (of which I believe it has plenty–all of it bad), I’m trying to figure out the purpose for the walled off area. Is it supposed to be a small chapel of sorts, or is it for the choir? And is that small box or lectern at the back of it the tabernacle?
Looks an awful lot like Superman’s Fortress of Solitude to me.
Can’t we get some Kryptonite for that thing?
I think it’s stunning. As someone who lives in the Bay Area and will most likely be visiting this cathedral from time to time, I can’t wait until it is completed. The faithful of the church in Oakland has not had a cathedral since 1989, since the Loma Prieta earthquake, which damaged the old cathedral and ultimately caused it to be condemned and torn down. The church in Oakland had to fight an unfriendly civic leadership and other local citizens unfriendly with the Catholic church just to purchase the land on which this cathedral will be built. The groundbreaking is something that this local community has waited for years. The people there are simply grateful for this gift: for a chance to finally worship with their bishop at a centrally designated location. Isn�t it rather funny that after the battles they had to go through with the secular folks up at city hall, they now have to contend with fellow catholics who are less than generous with their observations about their cathedral�s design?? Many people I have talked to in that diocese are actually proud of this cathedral and are simply grateful that soon they can worship around their bishop and around his chair. And isn’t the preference of the local Church there what really counts, not our rather �small� comments? So, please, we here in the Bay Area have to deal with a lot of folks who are less than friendly with the church, and it doesn�t really build up the house and church of God to have fellow catholics talk thusly about their bretherens� endeavors. Those outside the Church see your comments and think how petty we Catholic must really be. So, do take it easy.
regards,
vox
Wow, vox, is it really that bad out there? I saw an earlier posting on JPII (when he was Bishop of Krakov) having built the “ark” church in Nowa Huta, which I’ve seen and must say, don’t care for. But you’ve got me thinking that maybe in hostile territories disguising our churches is better than not having one at all. I’m being genuine here. Is it getting like China, where priests are hidden and Mass is being conducted in basements? This is breaking my heart.
Teresa, I invite you to read more about the situation that is going on with the faithful in China and to realize how indeed more dangerous their situation there is compared with the faithful here in the Bay Area who merely have to deal with folks whom I have described as “less than friendly” with the Church–not outright martyr-makers. And if you are indeed aware of their more perilous situation there compared to the climate here in the Bay Area, then I must say I do not understand why the “broken-heartedness.” With respect, I presume that expressing this “sentiment” of yours is a way perhaps of extending the gibing mood of the comments I have read, without any real genuinness or sincerity in it. Yesterday was my first visit to this blog, and so to the author of this blog, I must give my apologies and say that I am not familiar with the kind of mood, humor, or atmosphere of the comments or the posts. For myself personally, I am just glad that the ungenerous words I have read here are directed merely to aethetics, design, and architecture, and not to any substantial matters of faith and religion.
cheers,
vox
Oh Vox,
How horrible for you.
We had to sell our church some years ago (now we share Notre Dame de Grace church with the French parish). It wasn’t especially a pleasant experience — aside from the pain of having to leave the building, the people of the neighbourhood seemed to be as determined as possible to make it impossible to sell it. Well, that is a biased view, but they made is so that we couldn’t sell it to developers (even though we had a condition that the church structure could not be changed), and that the rectory and garden could not be changed.
And then everybody else thought our community no longer exsisted.
I know the two situations aren’t the same, but when you’re going through something that’s already difficult, even a little more makes it much harder.
I’m sorry if my comments have made things harder.
I’m glad your diocese will have a cathedral again.
Life Imitates…Logan’s Run
Ew. It reminds me of the Carousel from Logan’s Run. Ew.
tanks for sharing
Comments are closed.